VARy Low Expectations From The Premier League

It's been reported that even if the Video Assistant Referee receives approval for introduction from the authorities next season, Premier League clubs themselves could block its introduction due to ongoing concerns about the application of the system.

The BBC reported ahead of the weekend that although the International Football Association Board (IFAB) have now passed the introduction of VAR into the rulebooks at their meeting in Zurich in time for it to appear at the World Cup in Russia, top flight clubs in England remain more reticient about bringing it until the Premier League rulebooks.

With the most recent responses to VAR being 'comical' and 'embarrasing' following Tottenham Hotspur's FA Cup replay victory over Rochdale in midweek, every plausible positive thought for bringing it into the game is countered naturally by a negative based on how it currently works, and the confusion it causes for fans.

The BBC report that some Premier League clubs back VAR for only matters of fact incidents, such as incidents inside the penalty box and issues of mistaken identity, whilst others question the quality of trained officials available for a full weekend programme given the delays and confusion seen in the small trials so far.

The Premier League standpoint remains that they are 'open to considering new techology that assists match officials without disrupting the flow of the game' but VAR by its very design so far distrupts the flow of matches.

A statement released to the BBC read.

'We are monitoring closely the video assistant referee trials being conducted in other competitions. The evidence and learning provided by those trials will inform further discussions with our clubs later this season.'

David Elleray, IFAB technical director and former referee seemed to explain succinctly their position.

'Football has to decide does it want to use in a system which will bring in greater accuracy and fairness, albeit with some delay occasionally. Or do they want to stay where they are, where the fans are complaining that something is clearly wrong, everybody watching on television can see it was wrong, everybody in the stadium can see on their mobile phones that it was wrong, but the one person who needed to see the replay wasn't allowed to look at the replay? People have to decide do they want greater fairness or do they want continued unfairness because they don't want to occasional interruption?'

FIFA's voting standpoint was also clear from president Gianni Infantino.

'Let's look at the facts. We've analysed almost 1,000 games and the reality is you lose an average of 90 seconds per game. Is that too long? Perhaps. But we lose an average of seven minutes per game due to throw-ins. If we lose seven minutes on throw-ins, we can lose 90 seconds to get decisions right.'

Even though it has now passed at that level, 14 clubs from the Premier League still need to vote it into law for the top flight and that appears unlikely at this stage, and reports from trials around Europe's top leagues mimick the English experience so far when it comes to delays, problems and poor application so although the system clearly carries advantages unless it can be implemented in a more speedy, reasonable and clear fashion, at least for now it remains a no go.

Comments

0

I am suspicious that this obviously flawed system is being pushed so hard to become part of the game. It’s not ready yet and needs a lot of work and refinement. I believe it will ruin the World Cup. Why can’t the people pushing it so hard accept that. I would prefer it to be shelved and withdrawn from consideration for the foreseeable future and if folks insist then worked hard on in lower leagues until it is ready, hopefully not in my lifetime.

I think the answer for Premiership should be no but we should be willing to continue to trial it in our 2 domestic cup competitions but leave the door open for the following season. We should also be laying down a few conditions ago FIFA s follows: (1) Make it faster and more transparent to the fans in the stadium, eventually being available on the big screens (2) by all means check all goals, but do it whilst the game continues and only overrule a goal in the next minute or so of the game, again transparently to the fans. (3) Have a strong voice that we would rather change the offside rule back to one players offside / team offside than ever try and use technology to interpret the stupid rules that were implemented by FIFA (4) There is an education program in place for players and a clear message that cheating (e.g. shirt pulling) will be zero tolerance regardless of what has happened in the last 2-3 decades. (5) Zero tolerance to any arguing by players or managers about VAR decisions. They need to respect they are part of the implementation process and get behind it and start behaving like their rugby peers.

Said this before, but there is rarely an implementation of technology that doesn't go through a few iterations and a tough normalisation process.

Comparing VAR time-out to the time taken up for throw-ins makes no sense. Throw-ins are still part of the flow of the game and a player can be pulled up for time wasting if taking too long. It's the same for goal kicks and free kicks. All of these actions are a necessary part of the rules of the game of soccer. VAR is not.

Well, it's a bit of a catch 22. Nobody is saying it's perfect at the moment, but the only way to get it to work better is to let it go through growing pains, and eliminate the failures as time goes by... And it's likely to be ugly at first. I'm a big fan of technology being introduced because the idea of making the game fairer appeals to me. I think the objections, from PL clubs, listed in the article are legitimate; the recent games where VAR was used are proof to that. This being said, poor initial implementation doesn't mean the project should be abandoned altogether. I think the FIFA president's points are also fair. If it's time wasting we're worried about, he correctly points to other areas where greater gains could be made. VAR is part of the future of football, mostly because many fans want it. Resisting that change in England would be detrimental to the league in the long term. Why not embrace it and be an early example of how to get it right? I don't think it would take much to get it to work right. As muttley said, a bit more transparency, and as the PL clubs pointed to, a clear commitment from the league to train, and make enough staff available, to implement it right. Over the years, the sport we love has changed many times. This is just the latest change. Resisting it "just because we've always done it a certain way before" or "because it's not like it was in the good old days" is not really a good reason to stop it. At its heart, VAR is designed to make the game fairer and I don't think any fan should be against that.

Totally agree with BS and Muttley on this. The technology is not at fault here; it's the application of the technology that is causing the problems at present. But all of the problems experienced to date are solvable. It will take some time and a bit of patience. Football is a very low-scoring sport. Far too often incorrect decisions decide the outcome (whether through referee error, players cheating, whatever). This shouldn't be how matches are won.

For me it has nothing to do with the past or the good old days BS. It's to do with the now and the future. Not all changes are for the good. Not all changes are for the better in everyones opinion. Simply stating that things have changed and will change is no reason in itself to make the change. We'll see. I may or may not get used to it in time. In real time that is and not in relationship to a different past. What thrills me so much me about football, as much as anything else can, are the imperfections and human error. I can accept that fairness can quite often be unachievable and that 'fairness' is not always so black and white, necessarily objective or indeed all that fair.

"If we lose seven minutes on throw-ins, we can lose 90 seconds to get decisions right."

Therein lies the rub. In reality in the FA match the other night, we lost minutes, not seconds, and got the decisions wrong. VAR will be as popular as has been VAT. I prefer that wrong decisions be made without reducing a match to the pace of cricket. Could have boiled sufficient water to make a pot of tea in the time it took to watch the official on the headset waiting for a decision from some daemon of VAR.

HT - we all have different opinions (which is fine) but I don't think FIFA is trying to alienate football fans worldwide if there wasn't quite a bit of evidence that this is in fact what a majority of fans want. Depending on which side of the VAR debate one stands, they'll either like it or not, for a variety of reasons, some valid, some less so. But I suppose that FIFA are doing this because it's what the majority wants. I suppose it's a bit like Levy's management of the club - in the end there's little one can do except voice displeasure.

How does this then all translate into lower league football, school football, park football? There'll be angry mums, wives, girlfriends, dads, mates, all with their smart phones, showing endless replays to the poor bloody assistant ref standing on the by-line wishing he was waiting for a bus and not a final decision.

As to the notion that things change and we need to accept them, I'll never accept the hours upon hours lost to absurd searches of my body at airports, taking off my shoes and belt and trying to hold up my pants while I'm told to hole my hands out to the side. I'll never accept the time lost watching the spinning beach ball of death on my computer screen. I'll never accept the change of format of Vital Spurs to the format we have now. Bring back the past and do it fast. Accept a mal-functioning VAR just because times change? We might as well allow the demand of the Orange-Scourged American President to give automatic weapons to all our school teachers. Don't worry, we'll have video reviews after the shootings in the kindergartens. It's just that the times they are a' changing.

David O'Brien - the decisions took time but overall I thought every decision made by VAR against Rochdale was the correct one. Some went against us but that doesn't mean they were incorrect decisions. Once explained, they all made sense. So again it all comes back down to how quickly a decision can be explained to the fan. Other sports (rugby, the NFL) do a much better job of justifying a decision to the fans rapidly. That's what football needs to aim for.

FIFA may not be trying to alienate fans but it doesn't mean they don't, won't or haven't... Besides which I will accept it as a change and give it my time and respect. If it comes in full time, I'll have no choice. Like I've said, I may simply get used to it even if I don't as now, want it.

David - were they so wrong though? Llorente and the defender were clearly shirt pulling. No goal should ever be given when players are cheating but we've just got used to it happening over the years. It was news to me, but Trippier's penalty was legit according to a conversation the day after on TalkSport. Again, the referees have been taking the easy way out by always giving the free-kick outside of the box for way too long when they've had to make the call. For me, this is where it gets interesting as we'll start to see some different decisions (rather than wrong) than we're used to if the letters of the law are implemented using technology. In the process, if it eradicates the cheating then even better. Not that it's ready for prime time, but I can see it taking us in a good direction eventually and getting us back to the purer form of the game that we started with.

David - see that's just another question of perspective. They can put me through as many scans and searches as they want, as long as they guarantee that my plane won't be blown up mid flight by someone who managed to get a bomb past security. it's a small price to pay in my opinion. And this is coming from a frequent flyer who sits on a plane on an almost weekly basis. Just goes to show that the world is full of opinions ;-).

HT - "How does this then all translate into lower league football, school football, park football?" most of those games don't even have linesmen. There is always going to be a big difference between top flight football and grassroots football. That's inevitable. Most fans are OK with goal line technology, yet that's never going to be implemented all the way down the food chain. That's a poor excuse not to do it for me.

If VAR can be made less intrusive and decisions can be made as rapidly as I can make them by watching a replay on BT Sports, then I don't see the issue. Obviously in its current format, it is an absolute mess, but in time, you'd expect it to improve and public support to grow. At the highest level, theres just too much on the line these days, not to use the technology available.

Son should have been able to retake his penalty vs Rochdale, due to encroachment by half the players on the pitch, prior to Sons "stop", so that was an incorrect decision. Nothing to do with VAR however, but with the incompetence of officials on the day. VAR will not have 100% accuracy, but it will aid referees in getting a lot more decisions right than they would have without it.

That was a joke. A half-joke... I have seen many Mums and Dads, etc, on the parks of London, give the officials enough mouthy insults as it is but I can honestly see them now with their own circumstantial evidence from their mobile phone replays ruining the game for everyone involved. Least of all little Johnny or Jenny scoring what they thought was their first ever (Kane Like) perfect hat trick. Only to have it chalked off by a ref with a replay shoved in his face by Mr Caveman and his wife threatening scary repercussions... Ha bloody ha!

As Guyver says, I like the model field hockey uses. Or the NFL. Each captain/team has a certain number of challenges per half, and they use them as they see fit. If they're right and the decision on the field was incorrect, they keep their challenge. If it's not they lose it. It's (hopefully) going to be very rare that VAR has to be relied on more than 2 or 3 times per game, anyways.

But limiting it to a given number of calls for each team Guyver surely can't work. Least of all, who makes the decision on when and how to make these calls and based on what. An emotional response to something that perhaps wasn't clearly seen?. And when you've had your quota of calls but the real crucial and critical match deciding decision has yet to come, then where is the supposed fairness in that?

It is really just a matter of different opinions here and the only deciding factor for me will come when I can see it working as it is supposed to work. Right now, I don't feel it's needed or necessary and that the wrong decisions can still be made. Or, decisions that are not fully agreed upon and therefore remain controversial anyway, as without VAR.

A bit like subs HT. It becomes a tactical decision from the manager. Use your 3 subs too early and get an injury with 25 minutes remaining and you're in trouble. Likewise with VAR. Im only throwing this out there because I worry referees could start abusing the system, in fear of getting any decision wrong, which could possibly slow the game down to a crawl. That would be a change too far for me.

HT - There are always going to be a limited number of decisions which VAR can't help with. even the strongest supporters of VAR recognise that. Some decisions will always be down to interpretation. But that is not the majority of decisions in football. Some things are black and white. You're either onside or offside. The ball has crossed the line or it hasn't. Those are the decisions which VAR is supposed to help with. If without VAR, we get, say, 90% of decisions right, and with VAR, that bumps it up to 95% (I don't know what the real percentages are, but I used those numbers as an example), you're still going to get it wrong, with VAR, in 5% of the cases. But that's still 50% less errors with VAR. It's a question of perspective.

If you think the airport security ensures that your plane will not be blown up, then you've been scammed. Tests in the U.S. show that guns and knives get through the x-ray process much of the time. I doubt that things are better run in the U.K. There is the facade of safety, but not the reality. In the mean-time, the security lines collect all the passengers in one place, occupied with removing their shoes and collecting their stuff. Perfectly collected for someone who wants to inflict maximum damage and death in one place with a distracted crowd. Hit two or three security lines at the same time and the carnage equally taking down a plane. Sorry, but this is madness and self-delusion on our parts, all in the service of making us more servile to the state. As to VAR, I'd rather a few officiating mistakes slip by than the have the pace of a football match reduced to standing about waiting for officials to talk on their walkie talkies. Football is about movement and pace. Bad enought to park the bus. Worse to be pulled over to wait for the police to check your papers on their phones for ten minutes while writing out a speed violation. If I want to watch a sport at the pace of cricket, I'll go to watch cricket. It's one thing to stop for an injury, another to stop for tea-time ten times a match while checking the walkie talkie.

Well, I'm not going to argue with you guys because you are all making fair points in it's favour. I'm not saying it can't work. But I am saying that I don't really want to see it. And that is just my personal standpoint on how I view sport in general as a spectator and my arguments for that come from a direction that is completely different to those that are pro VAR in the first place. So, if it is an inevitability then I will have to accept it. I may yet be swayed by it eventually.

David - so what's your solution then? Because there is no perfect solution, do nothing at all (both in the case of airports and VAR)? I'd rather a partial solution which solves some of the problems than no solution at all. You may think that rules make us servile imbeciles to the state, but if you trust humans to auto govern themselves, you have chaos. Humans are collectively stupid - if anything, history has taught us that. None of the current societal models are perfect, but if anything, we live longer, and a lot healthier, than 1000 years ago when there were very few rules. Surely there's a correlation there.

And as for VAR, the frustration of seeing a goal which should not stand against my team, still stand because of human error/incompetence, far outweighs any minor hindrance I may experience will I wait 60 seconds for a decision to be made. How many Englishmen do I meet who still rue the Lampard goal at the World Cup in 2010... 8 years on, the frustration is still there. I doubt we'll be talking about the Rochdale game next month, let alone in 8 years. That's what's at stake here.

I certainly not against making the game fairer but I am against taking any longer that 45 seconds to analyze if the play was fair. If it takes longer than that then the evidence that a mistake was made could not be that clear. Allow for 15more seconds for the referee to advise the crowd the result of the review and get on with the game. I however suspect that there are too many instances in football where weak referees will call for reviews which will cause way too many disruptions to the proper flow of the game. Whatever my opinion the game will evolve and I will watch it regardless so long as Spurs are competing.

Football is not a sport that has any flow or pace to it anyway. The last stats that I saw that measured the actual amount of playing time (i.e. when the ball is in play) in 90 minute matches was just over 60 minutes. That's an awful lot of stoppage time. Of course, a lot of stoppages are for a short duration but many injuries are measured in minutes not seconds. So, as long as the actual waiting time for each VAR decision is reduced and the frequency that referees call for decisions is also reduced, I can only see the benefits of the system.

What about Geof Hursts goal in the 66 World cup final? The one that did or didn't go over the line. The Russian linesman and all that jazz. Many an Englishman would have rued that decision to this very day if Russia had gone on to win that match if the ball was deemed not to have crossed the line and so was disallowed. And there was/is many an Englishman who thought we got away with that one. Myself, I get over these decisions (fair or otherwise) pretty quickly. I just take it as part of the game. You win some, you lose some, as in life itself. ......... As for people living longer due to rules? Medical science, social science, better sanitation systems and modern healthcare are surely the biggest factor. And it's medical and social science, etc that has served it's purposes well in changing many a law (rule) that once had contributed to disease, ill health and early deaths at the work place and in the home, etc. ... Anyway back to the football................

Tactical subs, players feigning injuries ect are all ways in which teams use to intentionally disrupt the flow of the game, when under pressure. So there is a flow, but maybe the game is not as fast paced as we like to think.

Guyver - to your earlier point, I was frustrated that Son got a yellow card for that penalty and wasn't allowed to retake it. I then checked the rules online and it clearly stated yellow card and free-kick to the opposition. Yet another decision that the officials got right. Whilst it's a horrible implementation of technology, it's actually bringing up a different conversation about whether us fans who have played the game and watched it for decades even know the current rules :-)

muttley, I don't think its that simple, heres a good piece on it and why sometimes it is allowed and sometimes it isn't.. https://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com/2018/3/1/17065670/tottenham-hotspur-analysis-rochdale-fa-cup-son-heung-min-disallowed-penalty

I'd hold a discussion of the absurdity of airport security as it exists, and political violence in general, as someone alluded above by Belgian, but i'd hate to do this on VC, thank you very much. but the idea that the VAR-like delays in airports makes us safer does strike me as bizarrely wrong. But not a topic for a thread here, I think.

but a feckity feckity about a late-game Manure goal, now that's fair game for a VS thread. I really was thinking that we were about to pick up a couple of points in the race vs Manure. feckity feckity all feck out.

Man U vs Liverpool next, as long as we do our job vs Bournemouth, we'll pick up points on either or both this weekend. Man U looking more vulnerable than Liverpool at the moment, but I'd be ok with a draw in that game.

A draw in the Manure v Poo match would be the best outcome. We'd be picking up four points conjointly vs. two teams we're battling for position if we can take the three vs. Bournemouth. Manure v Poo, what a scatological match! Hope they both get wiped. You can look it up.

Regarding the Son penalty incident, did anyone see Ayew's penalty for swansea against West Ham at the weekend? It looked to me like there was a stutter in the run up - very similar to Son's - but he wasn't penalised. It's these inconsistencies in the application of the rules that irritate - not the rules themselves.

I have to agree with Gary re the inconsistency of how rules are enforced (a real issue) and muttley when it comes to how well us fans really know the rules. They're an evolving, living thing and if one wants to stay on top of the latest changes, it's a job in itself. The Son penalty thing is indeed a good example. Personally, watching the game live, I immediately knew why Son had been penalised, along with most people watching the game in the pub that night - probably a fair indicator that something deserves to be penalised, when most of the fans immediately know what the referee is penalising. However, what people didn't know was what happened next. A retake? A free kick? Things like that, or who should get the benefit of the doubt in case an offside decision is close - these rules have changed about 10 times in the last 30 years and very few fans actually keep up with the latest evolutions.

BS, whilst I was watching the game I also had Sky's Score Centre commentary (written) on my phone. When the incident arose the reporter was unsure of the rules so the behind-the-scenes team unearthed Fifa and Eufa's rules and they conflicted!

HT - Again it's a question of opinion, but even with VAR, you'll win some and lose some, with the exception that it'll actually be the right decision standing. If anything, the bitterness of the outcome may still be there, but there shouldn't be a feeling of injustice. That's already a plus, for me. Regarding why people live longer, the things you point to are certainly true in the last 50 years. Medicine is the biggest factor. But 1000 years ago, when it was perfectly alright to put a sword through someone's abdomen because he'd looked at you in the wrong way, people had bigger things to worry about than catching a cough. Anyways, as David said, there's probably a better forum to discuss society or airport security (an imperfect system, but the best we can do right now and better than nothing, in my opinion, until proven otherwise ;-)). Back to the football and VAR. And Juve. I've just submitted a match day article.

Gary - that's actually more Sky's fault than anything though. UEFA rules take the priority for European games (yes, England still falls under those rules, despite Brexit ;-)). FIFA rules would be relevant for events involving multiple confederations. A paid sports journalist should at least know this much and go to the right source. On a side note, it's absolute nonsense that the rules would not match, but I'm sure there have to be instances where different rules have a reason to exist. What happens after an improper penalty shouldn't be one of these instances though.

BS, they printed the relevant excerpts from both organisations' rules and one penalised a stutter in the run up, the other allowed a stutter in the run up but penalised a delay/stutter in talking the kick.

Some rules need to be rewritten. Especially taking a penalty. As far as I am concerned there should be no stutter stepping allowed, not slowing down. It should be one flowing run up and kick. Why? Because the kicker has the advantage already and doesn’t need to have another. But most importantly is that most penalties are given even though there is no clear cut chance of a goal or that a goal was imminent from the interrupted play and therefore no added advantage should go to the kicker. Just my opinion.

All very good points made on here. We will see. To me I can accept many of the arguments made for VAR even if I don't want it. But, what I personally want to see is not really up for question... I'm presuming that VAR won't be used in the FA cup final. Or is it an option? Have they already made their decisions on which games to use it or is it open?

I agree jvd. I always thought it to be unsporting of the kicker anyway. Likewise when goalkeepers wave their arms around or walk right up to the penalty spot and face up to the taker, or whatever antics are used to put the other guy off...

From the FA Website, Law 14 "feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up (feinting in the run-up is permitted); the referee cautions the kicker"

further down in Law 14 "the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. illegal feinting)"

My guess is these are the guidelines that are used in the Prem. Whether there are differences between FA, UEFA and FIFA, this shouldn't reflect the opinion of VAR or the referee in the Rochdale game.

Gary - also implies that a stutter in the run up (Ayew) is OK whereas stopping after completing the run up (Son) isn't. In my opinion, the football authorities should either enforce one continual run-up for a penalty or allow all stuttering/feinting. Leaving the rule in the half way house is just another clear example of the authorities creating stupid rules with no common sense applied and making it difficult for referees at all levels.

What's funny is FIFA's take on what they call a penalty infringement. "Feinting to take a penalty kick to confuse opponents is permitted as part of football. However, if in the opinion of the referee the feinting is considered an act of unsporting behaviour the player shall be cautioned." It also says that if the player scores the goal on the initial kick then it is retaken. No mention of yellow card anywhere, although unsporting behaviour is an implied yellow anyway.

Does make you wonder how referees cope with these anomalies and endorses the theory that FIFA, UEAF and the FA are a bunch of clowns who have lost a sense of reality on what football is all about.

VAR is obviously flawed but it or any other system will only be as good as it's operator, and the application for which it is intended. t was never intended to be a crutch to allow a poor referee like the young man in the Rochdale replay to ensure he never has to make a controversial decision. It was only ever intended to be used in key decisions to identify a clear mistake or error, this not the case currently. Also VAR is supposed to be the tool of the referee not something that interupts the flow of the game on the whim of the operator. The obviously contentious issues of delay, and lack of communication with the customer (paying fans), must also be addressed.